NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Well, then there's that hockey stick model that Al Gore pushed, and the Climategate via the University of East Anglia, then I can jump to the laughable peer-review process instituted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which summarily rejected studies that conflicted with global warming. Then there was the Himalayan Glaciers incident.
Yes, and Liberals call US uneducated?
If the overalll overwhelming consensus among scientists, including an overwhelming consensus among those not shown to be unethical or incompetent,
if that consensus is that the planet is warming,
how would it be that anecdotal incidents of unethical or incompetent actions in the scientific community serve to refute that consensus?
Does rampant pedophilia in the Catholic Church refute all principles of Christianity?
So how did religion come into the discussion? The planet is warming, but humans aren't causing the warming. It is part of an ancient cycle, there have been multiple warming periods over the past 800,000 years. And if you have to change the data, and manipulate models, lie about it to the masses, and intimidate or preclude scientists who come to different conclusions about a theory, then it is a fraud. I hate to break it to you.
None of what you accuse the scientists of has been proven except in isolated cases. Thus the religion analogy.
You operate the opposite of science, as does the author of this thread. You decide what you want to believe, then cherrypick the data and research to fit your beliefs.
That is not science.